The Kerala High Court emphasized that the legal profession serves society and cautioned against viewing it solely as a means for financial gain.
Justice Devan Ramachandran remarked that the notion of billing by the hour for legal services is a misunderstanding and is not the norm in Kerala. He also advised lawyers against basing their perspectives on the legal profession solely on information gleaned from the internet, particularly regarding American views on the matter.
We don't work by the hour. For us, the profession is still a service," the judge orally observed.
"Law is not a money-making profession. If anybody who enters this profession believes that this is a machine that behaves like an ATM - you put in the hours and you get the money, '' he said.
I don't want it to happen in Kerala, and preferably in the rest of the country. None of us have worked like this, nor do I work like that even now," the judge orally observed.
He stressed that the legal profession remains a service-oriented field, where financial rewards will naturally accrue to those who persist in their efforts. These remarks were made during a hearing of a petition filed by a lawyer practicing in Kottayam. The lawyer had been appointed as an advocate commissioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kottayam to oversee the possession of designated premises.
During the court proceedings, the bank informed the magistrate that the petitioner had only partially taken possession of the secured asset without their agreement. Allegedly surprised by this turn of events, the petitioner informed the bank that she would be unable to complete the process of taking possession.
She surrendered her commission warrant, and in response, the magistrate instructed her to remit the remaining balance of the commission fee. However, as she had visited the premises three times already, the petitioner argued that there was no outstanding balance to be paid.
This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court, arguing that the magistrate's order was unreasonable, arbitrary, and illegal.
Therefore, she sought orders from the High Court quashing the order of the magistrate.
The matter will be taken up next on March 5.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy